click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130422
20130422
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
made without a miranda warning or made while he's not really competent between times when he's sedated and not sedated. so they may be risking their death penalty, but they may be doing it for a good reason. they may need realtime intelligence, but i don't think that the public safety exception will stand up for allowing them not to have given the miranda warnings. >> fascinating. in fact, i have a lot of questions about that i'm going to get to. and actually i want to bring in another colleague as well right now. steve razor is a former military judge advocate general and knows a thing or two about this military issue. typically, steve, we hear about a 48-hour window and this is a very new area of justice. this has only been in sort of parlay for the last couple of years. we are far outside of that 48 hours by today. but can it be extended in the case of public safety? and exactly when can you establish that a public safety exemption has expired or is no longer of concern? how long can you keep him from getting miranda? >> well, there's no hard and fast rule on that. and that's exactl
miranda rights to keep him in a gray area right now whether or not he would be considered an enemy combatant or information that he would be allowing to investigators may not be used against him if he were try to be tried as an american civilian. as i talked there with roger about the fact that congressman peter king over the weekend said the homeland is the battlefield and that times have really changed, what are your thoughts about what the congressman has said about the fbi and that they may have missed red flags and the fact that the homeland is the battlefield? >> as you know, thomas, the fbi conducts thousands of interviews like this. i will say that they do a good job. i would say unless there was some evidence that would lead them to not do something to this individual, i would say they did a good job. i think my colleague, peter king, is not just monday morning quarterbacking but arm chair quarterbacking. we don't no what our investigative authorities know. i would say let them do their job. we can comment but when we start pointing fingers, i think we just add to the conf
, survived. he's an american citizen. natural i naturalized 9/11 of last year. should he be given miranda rights? should he be treated as an enemy combatant? that debate has started. give me the facts, first, what they'll do. >> this administration has made a policy decision here. first, that's number one. secondly, he cannot be tried as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal because that law was changed by the national defense authorization act of 2012 that says you can't do that to an american citizen. what some advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand, they say, we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court but start the questioning -- treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civ civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group,
. they didn't give a miranda warning so the aclu is shouting about that. and of course, well-known southern bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he so
. >> the supreme court's case in which miranda gave a course confession. said confessions have to be knowing, meaning you have to tell the person they don't have to confess, they don't have to talk to you. numerous supreme court cases have picked up on this and said the government must always tell you when you're confronted with a government you don't have to speak to the government. protecting the freedom of speech also protects the right to remain silent. but the supreme court said most people don't don't have the right to remain silent. so you, government, fbi or travel cup have to tell whoever you are interrogating they have the right to remain silent. that is what is not being honored, from what we understand. whatever he said could affect other evidence that independently obtained. it is risky not to read miranda rights and a violation of the constitution not to do so. so the government treads in danger when they try to strike information and somewhere we will not use that against the defendant. tracy: the emotional side of me says too bad. speak of the. >> the emotional side if he wan
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)